My ped is saying this is one of the vaccines he very much wants us to get (we delayed until two and have done the DTaP) I'm on the fence. His point is that there have been recent outbreaks near by.... help me process this please.

It's a Cochrane summary of the MMR vaccine looking at risks and benefits. Cochrane is an independent body that looks at published studies, critiques and summarizes them and tries to explain is reasonably plain language the best current picture (for a variety of health issues). I'm quite confident they're independent and have the knowledge to understand what the many research studies actually mean.

In that review they give an efficacy for mumps which hasn't passed through Merck.

I haven't heard about Mumps outbreaks, but measles definitely seems to be on the rise, and can be a serious disease. Be clear - the vaccine won't protect your child 100%, but it's better than nothing.

Medical texts prior to the advent of the vaccine described measles as a benign, self-limiting childhood infectious disease that posed little risk to the average well-nourished child. All of that changed about 40 years ago when health authorities decreed the need to eradicate the measles, and so began The Great Measles Massacre.

Wilma and Betty are finalists in a television bake-off, but on the eve of the event, they contract measles. Donning wigs and dresses, Fred and Barney take their places in the contest, but one of the guys' carelessness could jeopardize the win of the grand prize.

I'd be interested to see that cartoon from another source. To me the text looked photoshopped, but that might just be my bias against anti-vax websites.

It is a screencap from the TV cartoon, not a printed comic strip, so yes, the audio had to be photoshopped on as text. It is likely accurate though - sounds like something Barney Rubble would say. Though considering they had no problems with their kids playing with clubs, riding on dinosaurs, or riding unrestrained in their car, I think their views of safety and risk may be a bit skewed from mine.

Benign? Really? Tell that to Roald Dahl whose daughter died of it just a year after that Flinstones episode originally aired.

I think we all know that people back in the day generally weren't exactly quaking in their boots at the thought of measles. Most kids suffered through it and recovered just fine, and there were much bigger things to worry about. But every year, a few hundred people died of it, and more were left with life long effects such as brain damage, scarring, blindess, deafness, long term health complications, and so forth. I can understand and accept why some people argue that the risks of the vaccine are greater than the risks of the disease. The evidence may disagree, but they truly believe this. But just dismissing a few hundred deaths and all the serious complications as not worth a second thought because most kids made it through just fine and most adults who had it were fortunate enough to be able to remember it as just an uncomfortable part of childhood really gets under my skin every time. Olivia Dahl and all those other kids mattered, even if their numbers were not huge.

I have some other issues with the article you linked to, too. For instance:

Quote:

Before widespread vaccination against measles, young babies were not at risk of measles because they acquired immunity through the mother’s blood. Adults were not at risk because most of us gained lifelong immunity as a child. Both these groups are now susceptible to the measles and both have greater risk of severe disease and complications. This is described as an “unintended outcome” of measles vaccination.

Note it says "most of us gained lifelong immunity as a child." Earlier in the article, it said that greater than 90% of kids had measles by age fifteen. Nearly everyone got measles as a kid, but there were always a few adult cases now and then from those who somehow missed having it.

Likewise, maternal immunity was not always perfect in it's protection, and some infants still managed to get the disease despite their mothers having had it, just as there have always been some cases of kids getting chickenpox during early infancy despite their mothers having had the disease. For that matter, while aquired immunity from a vaccinated mother might not be as strong or long lasting as from a mother who had a natural infection, it does provide some protection. This is why the vaccine is not effective if given too young, before maternal antibodies have been cleared from the infant's system.

So both groups have always had some members who were susceptible to the disease, and most adults would know that they were as a result of not having a memory/record of having measles, it is pretty much impossible to tell which infants are.

In 2011, there were 27 cases of measles in infants less than a year old, and 76 were over the age of twenty. These numbers are much higher than normal, as it was the worst year for measles since 1996 with 222 cases total. I don't have numbers for infant cases prior to the vaccine, but with hundreds of thousands of cases each year, certainly there would have been more than 27 occurring in infants. And with population increases since then, if the vaccine had never been introduced, we could expect millions of cases each year, and while the vast, vast majority would have been in kids over the age of 1, there still certainly would be more than 27 infants infected each year.

Conclusion: greatly reducing risk of measles exposure to infants by means of herd immunity is more effective at protecting them than relying on maternal antibodies.

The article also raises questions about the vaccine immunity for measles wearing off eventually. This is indeed something that should be watched carefully, but the article paints it as a near certainly. My last measles booster was over twenty years ago, and there are plenty of people who haven't had one in over forty years. Many haven't been exposed to the wild virus since then either, since cases have been so low - I'm fairly certain I never have been. Yet the vast majority of people infected in the recent outbreaks have been unvaccinated; this seems to indicate that vaccine immunity is holding up quite well so far! The article seems to paint it as a certainty that if immunity were to wane eventually, tons of cases among the elderly would be inevitable, completely ignoring the possibility of adding a booster to the adult schedule. They may not like this possibility, but it is at least worth mentioning!

Pers, I am old enough to have had measles, as were my brother, cousins, and friends, every one had it. Olivia Dahl's death was a rarity in the UK by 1961, and who knows what kind of health problems she had. Was she recently vaccinated (not for measles obviously) and her immune system damaged? I grew up in the UK and no one that I know of, and you can be sure if my mother knew of someone we would have known (huge worrier), died, or even suffered complications for measles. The doctor made a house call, and we got to stay home from school for a week or so, got better. End of story. Measles was never feared, well nourished children for the most sailed through measles and had the benefit of life-long immunity. Revisionist history might say otherwise. I believe I was around 6 when I had measles which was about the average age to contract it then.

The Flintstones episode is a reflection of the prevailing thought of the time (as per the CDC), that measles was a benign, self-limiting childhood disease. Of course had that been an episode of a modern day cartoon, the script would be very different.

ETA: if measles was thought of as such a "deadly" disease, why would it be featured in a children's cartoon, for heaven sakes? No measles was not scary, and every kid watching that episode back in 1961 would have known that.

Mirzam, does that contradict anything I wrote above? I know that people weren't terrified of measles back then, and I don't think anyone should panic when an outbreak happens now. However, I also know that a few hundred people died each year in the US from measles, and now they don't - isn't that a good thing?

You may not have known anyone to die of it, but In England and Wales, there were 152 deaths in 1961, the year of the Flinstones episode, and 39 in 1962, the year when the Olivia Dahl would have been one of them. In recent years, there was 1 death in 2006 and another in 2008 (yes, both kids who died had underlying health conditions, but perhaps both would still be alive anyway if not for the decline in MMR rate and resultant increase in measles cases following Wakefield's report?), and that is it for deaths from acute measles since 1992. http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

I have no idea if Olivia Dahl had health problems or not. All I know is what her father wrote - that she was seven years old, that he wasn't scared, that her measles seemed to be completely normal, and that she seemed to be "well on the road to recovery" until suddenly she wasn't, and that Roald Dalh is a proponent of vaccination as a result of her death from a disease that is now preventable. Also, she died of measles encephalitis. As far as I am aware, it is a rare complication and seemingly luck of the draw who ends up with it with no known special risk factors beyond being infected with measles? But I wouldn't swear to that for certain.

I know that parents generally weren't scared of measles any more than they were scared of taking a Sunday afternoon drive in the country with baby held on Mom's lap. I also know that some kids did die, and now they don't* (except in very small numbers in places where low vaccination rates have allowed measles outbreaks), and this is a good thing.

Look, if you want to argue that the vaccine causes more harm than the disease did, or that the vaccine doesn't work and measles went away for other reasons, or that we're all going to suffer in fifty years when our vaccine immunity wanes, I'll disagree with you, but whatever, I understand your position and accept that if those things were true it would be worth rethinking vaccination. But arguing the deaths of those children don't matter because most of the kids who got it were okay and people didn't find measles to be a terrifying disease is despicable. Those lives did matter. The people alive today who would have died of measles in the years since the vaccine was introduced, however small that number would be, do matter. I'm glad we were able to prevent their deaths, whoever they may be.

* I'm talking developed nations here. Of course measles is still a major killer in poverty stricken areas. Improving nutrition and health care in those areas would do a lot to improve the survival rate for measles cases there... and vaccination drives can prevent measles cases from ever happening.

Look, if you want to argue that the vaccine causes more harm than the disease did, or that the vaccine doesn't work and measles went away for other reasons, or that we're all going to suffer in fifty years when our vaccine immunity wanes, I'll disagree with you, but whatever, I understand your position and accept that if those things were true it would be worth rethinking vaccination. But arguing the deaths of those children don't matter because most of the kids who got it were okay and people didn't find measles to be a terrifying disease is despicable. Those lives did matter. The people alive today who would have died of measles in the years since the vaccine was introduced, however small that number would be, do matter. I'm glad we were able to prevent their deaths, whoever they may be.

Whoa, I was arguing nothing of the sort. To put words in my mouth like that is totally unacceptable. Of course many vaxers, argue vaccines for the "greater good", and collateral damage here and there is worth it.

[Note from Source: "†Some oral fluid specimens were submitted early from suspected cases and may not have been subsequently notified, thus the proportion tested is artificially high for this quarter."]

I just googled the heck out of it because I have not heard anything about outbreaks of these diseases in the Philly area. I get a lot of hits about measles in Philly....From 1991!!! Are you sure there ate current cases or was your doctor possibly using fear tactics? If there are current outbreaks please send me the link. Thanks!

I just googled the heck out of it because I have not heard anything about outbreaks of these diseases in the Philly area. I get a lot of hits about measles in Philly....From 1991!!! Are you sure these are current cases or was your doctor possibly using fear tactics? If there are current outbreaks please send me the link. Thanks!

I would google the CDC, see if there really was a meaningful outbreak, and take it from there.

For a child, rubella and mumps do not phase me at all. I would be more worried if I had teens, but teens get some say in their healthcare, IMHO.

Measles does squigg me out a bit, but I reserve the right to do more research before I make a call on it.

If I gave the MMR I would make sure it was MMR and not MMRV, which has a higher rate of something (that is technical for you - but please look it up, it is not as safe for one reason or another).

As a foil to the Ronald Dahl story, I would like to bring up Raggedy Ann. The daughter of Johnny Gruelle, the creator of the Raggedy Ann stories, died at age 13 from what her parents believe was a vaccine reaction (a vaccine given against their consent). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raggedy_Ann

Yes, it is horrible - people occasionally die from measles or suffer long term consequences; people occasionally die from vaccine reactions as well and suffer long term consequences (oooh, and when they do die from a vaccine reaction, the authorities don't believe the parents at all).

I just googled the heck out of it because I have not heard anything about outbreaks of these diseases in the Philly area. I get a lot of hits about measles in Philly....From 1991!!! Are you sure there ate current cases or was your doctor possibly using fear tactics? If there are current outbreaks please send me the link. Thanks!

I think dakotablue's doctor needs to read up on the definition of "outbreak." One or two recent cases of measles in Philadelphia is certainly not an "outbreak," and would still be in line with the annual national average of 60.

I take measles pretty seriously. I can understand how you might decline the MMR because of concerns about safety, or allergies to vaccine ingredients, or a family history of auto-immune issues or vaccine reactions, or because you just aren't certain about vaccines and your child won't be in group care situations for some time yet. If you were thinking about declining the MMR because measles, mumps, and rubella aren't serious diseases, I would urge you to get the shot.

All three of those diseases were once common childhood illnesses. Small numbers of people each year faced serious complications as a result. As others have said, those small numbers were significant.

People with underlying health conditions are more likely to suffer complications (though they are not the only people who do). My kid has an underlying health condition. She's a pretty remarkable kid when people meet her, but not because of her underlying health condition. Unless you've seen her dad turn pale when she develops a fever with sniffles, you would never guess (I freak out too, but without changing skin color). Until your kid has gotten sick a few times and you've seen the results, you won't know if your child has an underlying health condition that would make measles, mumps, or rubella more dangerous than it would be for the average person. And even at that point, a bad case of the wrong illness can give your kid an underlying health condition - for example, Reactive Airway Disorder is a common consequence of RSV. RAD is an underlying health condition that increases the risks associated with measles, mumps, and ear and respiratory infections.

It makes me furious when people discount deaths from disease outbreaks because "those people had underlying health conditions" or "we don't know what kind of underlying health conditions those people had." People with underlying health conditions are real people. Their complicated illnesses and deaths really matter to the people who care about them. They count. Part of the purpose of vaccination is to provide herd immunity for people with underlying health conditions.

Last year, MA had an outbreak of measles that involved a transit worker at South Station in Boston. If I can get to Philly on the Amtrak from South Station, so can measles. While your doc may be over-stating the Philadelphia outbreak, I can understand why doctors would be concerned about keeping the MMR uptake rate high on the east coast. Population density is high and there's a lot of travel between cities. A large-scale outbreak could quickly overwhelm hospitals in the area.

The vast majority of people with measles do not need to be hospitalized, there is no conventional medical treatment for it. What kind of disease are you imagining measles is? Since the vaccine was introduced, it has not changed into some new kind of super killer virus, it is just the same disease it was 40 years ago and the vast numbers who got sailed through it. Now given the fact that a great number of people in the US are now immune compromised from vaccines, environmental pollutants, and malnourished from processed foods, and consume vast amounts of food additives, and frankenfoods like GMOs and mercury laden HFCS, then it is possible they wouldn't fare as well and children of the previous generation who were less health compromised.

Properly managed (meaning not mismanaged by the administration of antipyretics and antibiotics), having measles not only results in a life-long specific immunity to measles, but also in a life-long non-specific protection against degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, immunoreactive diseases (such as allergies, asthma), sebaceous skin diseases and cancers. As Ronne (1985) demonstrated, not having measles with a proper rash is not desirable. It predisposes to the above diseases; and these were just the diseases that he studied. There could be other non-specific benefits from measles. West (1966) published already several decades ago that having mumps prevents ovarian cancer. [My bolding] - Viera Scheibner, PhD

Measles is an extremely contagious disease that causes serious complications in a small percentage of people who get it, mostly in the very young, the very old, the immune-compromised and people with underlying health conditions. Because measles is so contagious, hospitalizing that small percentage of people who need hospital support as a result of measles is complicated. Hospitals are full of immunocompromised people who have serious health conditions and who are highly likely to suffer serious consequences if they get measles. There aren't that many quarantined hospital wards.

Mirzam, you've made it very clear that you think anyone who gets sick has only themselves and their dietary choices to blame. I find your reasoning flawed. You ignore germ theory and massive problems in public health infrastructure in favor of blaming sick people. I think your analysis would benefit from greater consideration of a wider variety of factors.

It makes me furious when people discount deaths from disease outbreaks because "those people had underlying health conditions" or "we don't know what kind of underlying health conditions those people had." People with underlying health conditions are real people. Their complicated illnesses and deaths really matter to the people who care about them. They count. Part of the purpose of vaccination is to provide herd immunity for people with underlying health conditions.

I don't think people are discounting the deaths of people with underlying health conditions. Any death or serious reaction from a VPD or vaccine injury is a horrible thing!

What I think people mean when they say "underlying health conditions" is that measles (mumps, rubella, chicken pox) are not typically dangerous for healthy individuals.

If a mother comes on this forum worrying about whether she needs to worry about a disease, the stats on the health profile of those affected is vitally important. If my child is healthy, and I learn healthy children have a 1/2000 serious complication rate, that is very different than if my child is not healthy and has (statistically) a 1/200 rate of complication.

I have 2 children who are perfectly healthy, and one who is prone to chest infections. I am seriously considering getting a pneumonia vax for my pneumonia prone daughter - and I am not getting it for my healthy children. They have different health profiles.

It makes me furious when people discount deaths from disease outbreaks because "those people had underlying health conditions" or "we don't know what kind of underlying health conditions those people had." People with underlying health conditions are real people. Their complicated illnesses and deaths really matter to the people who care about them. They count.

So why doesn't it make you furious when people discount deaths, brain damage, or autism that results from vaccinating people who had underlying health conditions?

Where is your outrage over the fact that Hannah Poling's autism resulted from vaccination on top of mitochondrial disorder, yet nobody is testing babies or children for mitochondrial disorder before vaccination--in spite of indications that autistic children are likely to have mitochondrial disorder? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130161521.htm)

What if Hannah Poling's mito disorder was actually CAUSED by all the vaccines she'd had since birth? After all, her mother apparently has the same mito disorder; she was vaccinated as a child--but with far fewer vaccines than Hannah, that were given far later.

I don't understand how doctors can be furious at complacency about the possibility of complications from a usually harmless disease, but then turn around and be complacent about the complications from a usually harmless (we think....we don't know for sure) vaccine.

I don't think people are discounting the deaths of people with underlying health conditions. Any death or serious reaction from a VPD or vaccine injury is a horrible thing!

What I think people mean when they say "underlying health conditions" is that measles (mumps, rubella, chicken pox) are not typically dangerous for healthy individuals.

If a mother comes on this forum worrying about whether she needs to worry about a disease, the stats on the health profile of those affected is vitally important. If my child is healthy, and I learn healthy children have a 1/2000 serious complication rate, that is very different than if my child is not healthy and has (statistically) a 1/200 rate of complication.

I have 2 children who are perfectly healthy, and one who is prone to chest infections. I am seriously considering getting a pneumonia vax for my pneumonia prone daughter - and I am not getting it for my healthy children. They have different health profiles.

You might want to consider that they all breathe on each other, and that vaccinating all of them will provide more protection for your kid who is prone to chest infections than vaccinating just the one.

My other major point about underlying health conditions that I think is being over-looked here is that people with underlying health conditions are often healthy. The major factor that allows doctors to diagnose an underlying health condition is an illness that goes badly. It's often a retroactive diagnosis.